06 December 2010

NH Legal Ethics guru Martha Van Oot and her former underling Maria Proulx lie about black men or hurt children all the time, and get away with it.

Note: I'll be sending notice of this to the folks at CASA, where Proulx, above, is legal counsel. Viva the Internet, or mi casa su casa.

I wasn't surprised to find out that supposed NH Ethics guru Martha Van Oot (l.) lied to Ralph Holder, another black male Civil Rights activist, when she told him that guardians ad litem were not subject to disciplinary and ethics Rules as the GAL sent his black child, born and raised in NH, to an inferior minority school to be with the other minority children in Massachusetts. Supreme Court Justice Linda Dalianis affirmed it, now they want to make her Chief (In)Justice, even though she is the lone dissenter on illegal search cases like State v. Orde, 2010 NH Lexis 145 (2010). What a nice little fascist agenda that is.

Watch the NH Supreme Court Executive Council Confirmation hearings for Justice Dalianis and Robert Lynn, two Judges who have both touched my life and many others with racist and otherwise unlawful biased rulings and attitudes, with Lynn even putting a young child into unsupervised visits with a sexual felon, whereupon the child sustained injury. Here is the full audio.

See I preserve my files and I'm not going to take any more of the bullshit that passes for Law and Ethics in New Hampshire. In a lawsuit against NAACP Legal Chair Gloria Timmons and Martin Dunn for Defamation, Proulx, the same white girl who used to work at the Courthouse and who refused to shake my hand, flat out lied when she got Gloria a massive exension of time and avoided Default Judgment in a case heard by Judge Robert Lynn on her Discovery responses by stating she was "unable to determine when the discovery was served."

Well I dunno ladies, perhaps the freaking time stamp from Sergeant Richard Young at 27 July, 2005 at 12:59 p.m. might have helped you?

Folks like Jim DeHart let them slide, business as usual. By the way Sir, how are things going with my Ethics Complaint about Dan Mullen, who said I was disbarred, that I had fantasies about Chief Dunn raping his daughter, that I wrote a Fraudulent letter when I was NAACP Legal Chair and that I misrepresented myself as a licensed attorney when all of those cases were DISMISSED without findings? You do know, Sir, that the taxpayers of New Hampshire are now footing the bill for the award that Justice Dalianis and the High Court gave his client Martin Dunn, based on those very lies? See In re Martin Dunn, 2009-265 in case you forgot. Jim, it has been a month since I sent you this information.


Christopher King said...

Note to CASA: Maria Proulx's former boss and law firm hurt a black child for no lawful reason, and lied in Open Court.

date Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:38 AM
subject Note to CASA: Maria Proulx's former boss and law firm hurt a black child for no lawful reason, and lied in Open Court.

hide details 9:38 AM (0 minutes ago)

from Christopher King kingjurisdoctor@gmail.com
to speakup@casanh.org,
Jonathan Van Fleet jvanfleet@nashuatelegraph.com,,
ralph ,

Christopher King said...

Down South where they are allegedly backwards, even they know you can't use racial criteria when placing a child, I will post the full decision later but anybody with a clue will get the drift, why didn't Linda Dalianis?

Melissa TIPTON v. Zeb Taylor AARON.
No. CA 03-932.
-- June 16, 2004

I join my colleagues in concluding that the trial court erred when it found that granting custody to the father is in the best interest of the child. I further believe that the trial judge erred when he improperly
based his child-custody determination on racial bias contrary to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 104 S.Ct. 1879, 80 L.Ed.2d 421 (1984).

However, I write separately to address ethical and evidentiary aspects of the case that deserve judicial comment. The Supreme Court, in Palmore, supra, held that the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment prohibits consideration of private racial bias in determining the best interest of a child in a custody case. Yet, in this case no objections were raised, and the trial judge did nothing,
despite persistent questions from appellee's counsel regarding appellant's interracial family and despite the specious argument that Colten would likely experience problems from growing up in an interracial family.

Given the Palmore holding, the compelling question arises as to the extent that trial counsel are or should be allowed to examine witnesses regarding the existence of a private racial bias. In other words, does
Palmore prohibit trial counsel from questioning witnesses regarding racial bias, and does Palmore allow or require a trial court, sua sponte, to preclude or limit this line of questioning, where no objection is raised?
Because Palmore clearly prohibits the use of racial bias as a basis for a custody decision, this is not merely a matter of a trial court acting in a politically correct manner in hearing evidence and reaching a
judicial determination. Rather, this is a matter of courts enforcing rights granted by the federal constitution and of preventing court proceedings from being converted into forums where bigotry is
promoted and tolerated under the guise of trial advocacy.

But here in New Hampshire they tolerate it, then hide it, then lie about it.

Disgusting, they should ALL be disbarred.

-The KingCaster.